Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

I think anyone who looks at life and thinks it can have come about without an intelligence being involved must be unable to consider the obvious.

You must recognise that your limited knowledge on the subject also limits your understanding of any concepts concerning the origin of life on this planet. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean an intelligent force created life.

You need very little knowledge or common sense to appreciate that the odds of life as know it comming about by chance are such that it it accepted as being impossible by the methods used to create the odds, and which are accepted by most people who understand the process.

You must recognise that your limited knowledge on the subject also limits your understanding of any concepts concerning the origin of life on this planet. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean an intelligent force created life.

You could say; science has limited knowledge,regarding everything in existence and all other matter unseen in the universe.

What we are good at is, making good theories regardless of where one comes from in background. Some Intelligent deduced ideas that can make good sense,depends on the individuals explanations to the idea and what we are able to observe.(as we all know)

You need very little knowledge or common sense to appreciate that the odds of life as know it comming about by chance are such that it it accepted as being impossible by the methods used to create the odds

If the event is impossible, how can you calculate the odds of it happening?

You could say; science has limited knowledge,regarding everything in existence and all other matter unseen in the universe.

Of course science has limited knowledge. We don't know everything. But the further we delve the more questions are raised. This is the pursuit of knowledge and truth and is solely based on tested, reproducible evidence. Scientists do not make claims unless there is evidence to support the claim whereas creatinionists make unfounded claims and then quit. No further investigation required. Done. Happy with that answer.

There is too much in the world to discover to sit back and be happy with the easy 'answer'.

we find true scientists couching their statements in scientifically cautious terms, such as “the evidence suggests”, thereby preserving scientific integrity in their statements.

Of course they do, Rock. But when deciding which evidence is more reliable, I would lean towards "the evidence suggests" rather than 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" which is a biblical claim, a statement of fact, for which there is no evidence that God did any such thing.

The bible does not say "In the beginning, it would appear that God created the heavens and the earth because we ancient Hebrews do not understand the mysteries of the origins of life, the beginning of the universe or the creation of our world so therefore it might be a supreme superpower God. No. The bible makes a claim as though it were fact. Perhaps, if the ancient scribes had couched their statements in cautious terms thereby preserving integrity in their statements, we wouldn't see all the division in the world in relation to religious dogma.

we find true scientists couching their statements in scientifically cautious terms, such as “the evidence suggests”, thereby preserving scientific integrity in their statements.

Of course they do, Rock. But when deciding which evidence is more reliable, I would lean towards "the evidence suggests" rather than 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" which is a biblical claim, a statement of fact, for which there is no evidence that God did any such thing.

The bible does not say "In the beginning, it would appear that God created the heavens and the earth because we ancient Hebrews do not understand the mysteries of the origins of life, the beginning of the universe or the creation of our world so therefore it might be a supreme superpower God. No. The bible makes a claim as though it were fact. Perhaps, if the ancient scribes had couched their statements in cautious terms thereby preserving integrity in their statements, we wouldn't see all the division in the world in relation to religious dogma.

The Bible is simply following a series of previous 'Creation' stories, all crediting a God or Gods with creating all things.

The Egyptians had several creation myths depending where you lived in Egypt. They all accept 'Nu' - chaotic lifeless waters from which all things were formed. 2300-2800 BC. The Sumerian one being slightly later on a fragmented tablet (Eridu Genesis) of around 2200BC Rig Veda and Bible around the same time 1000BCMany others followed on similar lines. These are what we have evidence for. There will have been other unrecorded Creation stories.

Perhaps if scientists had added the precaution of saying that certain drugs might not be what they claim we would not have problems that are around today. I mention no drugs to avoid upsetting individuals. 'Certainty' is not confined to religions. Science has its problems.

As most religions accept the creation of the world by a God/gods I don't think it is creation that causes problems. It is the understanding each religion has of 'their' Gods nature and demands.

Hi Rock, I don't believe in or disbelieve in Big Bang. Big Bang is a plausible explanation to how the universe began but as I have said on numerous occasions there are unanswered questions....such as....what was before the Big Bang? To me Time is infinite going forwards and backwards. So the time before the Big Bang was sometime. There can never be nothing. Even the singularity must have been 'in' something. The creation of this universe by a big bang is a very plausible explanation given the physics and the mass of the known universe. What kicked off the Big Bang is anyone's guess. You think it was a supreme, intelligent, power. I think it was a power of some sort. I cannot say it was or wasn't intelligent but as all other things in the universe and on this planet seem to tick along quite nicely without supreme intervention, I'm inclined to think that intelligence has nothing to do with how we came to be. It is the ego of man that wants to think he's somehow supremely significant and belongs in the 'grand scheme of things'. We are not. But that does not mean that we shouldn't strive for peace, respect, equality, decency and above all love for our fellow humans and the other species who share this planet with us. You can have a secular view of the world and still hold a moral and decent world view without all the delusion of belief in invisible, supreme beings.

My objection is that you expect science to couch their assertions in cautious terms but the bible doesn't have to.

Take care, Rock. We've got snow in England. My mom has gone back to Canada today and we will miss her something fierce. She's a little spitfire

Neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Greek Bible is a science text/research findings publication. I expect, and reasonably so, that anything purporting to be scientific research be couched in scientifically-cautionary terminology.

I think when anyone makes claims, scientific or otherwise, it is incumbent on them to provide evidence that supports their claim. The bible does make scientific claims that have been proven wrong such as the order of 'creation' and how man evolved. It is quite clear that it is just a myth that is quite similar to creation myths from all around the world. The first chapter of Genesis gets it collossally wrong on all fronts. But not once does it couch it's narrative in cautious terms.

Anyway, let me know how you get on with the website and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Take care, Rock n Rolla

I do not suppose you have seen the latest, a scientist now believes that life came from outer space having found life forms on a piece of material that fell from the heavens, where does that leave all those that think life came from a little pool of water near a volcano etc; ?. and who have based all their ideas on thaty presumption.

I do not suppose you have seen the latest, a scientist now believes that life came from outer space having found life forms on a piece of material that fell from the heavens, where does that leave all those that think life came from a little pool of water near a volcano etc; ?. and who have based all their ideas on thaty presumption.

Hello polyglide. This is an old theory called Panspermia. The fact that life is here on Earth gives rise to the idea that life may have existed elsewhere in the universe during the universe's 14 billion year history. If an inhabited planet exploded and sent debris through space and ended up on the early earth, the conditions might have been just right to spark an organism hitch-hiking on a rock into reproducing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any evidence to back it up except the fact of our own existence on this planet in this bit of space. Perhaps, when our sun dies and the solar system explodes in about 5 billion years, the organisms on this planet may spark life on another planet.

tlttf is right about one thing. All the matter in the universe was created in stars. Even you, polyglide, are made of stardust.

You do not have to believe that there is no other life within the universe to believe in the Christian God.

The vastness of the universe that we can actually confirm is such that the probability is that there could be life of various kinds created by beings beyond our understanding and of a nature completely different to anything we know.

The biggest problem with the human is the inability to see that he/she is not the see all and be all of everythimg.

You do not have to believe that there is no other life within the universe to believe in the Christian God.

If you had said that just a few hundred years ago, you may have been burned at the stake for heresy - as Giordano Bruno was for saying the same thing. What you have unwittingly done with your statement is prove how Christianity has repeatedly been forced to accept science. Religion has always been dragged kicking and screaming into the next century. In the not so distant future, even die-hard Christians like yourself will be admitting evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, the Big Bang as the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Not so long ago, in the grand scheme of things, the words you just typed would be grounds for your immediate execution yet, here you are, a devout Christian, saying them. I doubt you would have said them during Giordano Bruno's time. Even you, knowingly or not, are contradicting what was once considered Biblical canon. See how it works?

The biggest problem with the human is the inability to see that he/she is not the see all and be all of everythimg.

The irony here is that Christianity teaches us that we ARE the "see all and be all" of everything. In fact, going against the idea that humanity is God's supreme creation was what landed Giordano Bruno in hot water (pun intended) in the first place. There is a dichotomy, however. On the one hand, we're supposed to believe we're little more than pond scum in the eyes of God. We're just a bunch of worthless, wicked sinners not even worthy to draw our next breath. At the same time, however, we are told that this all-powerful, universe-creating God loves us despite our faults, that this supreme being actually takes the time out of his busy schedule to answe ourr petty prayers, to guide us on our journey through life, that he was so concerned for our well-being that he offered the blood sacrifice of his own Son so that we could be forgiven. Remember - we're talking about a Supreme Being here, not a little demigod that wrestled around with hydras or killed the Kraken. To even suggest that such a powerful entity would give our entire species, much less individual humans, the time of day is the very height of hubris; it is pride and arrogance of the first magnitude. We wouldn't even expect a handshake from the President or the Queen were we standing in a crowd, yet with God ... GOD ... we honestly believe this Supreme Being is personally looking out for each and every one of us on an individual basis. It's no wonder, then, why some Christians (not all) strut around like the cat who ate the canary, smug in their own superior self-righteousness.

Think about it. And ... if you really DO think about it. I mean, if you think about it REALLY hard, one very simple, over-arcing conclusion should hit you like a ton of bricks: That God exists for OUR benefit, not his own. WE are the entire reason why God exists. What else do you see him doing? Why, nothing, of course, except micromanaging the affairs of humanity. Without us, God would serve no purpose whatsoever. Once again, think about it ... really hard. What does that conclusion indicate? Give up? Why yes - that God was invented by humans and not the other way around. Atheism. See how it works?

These are one page explanations so not too tedious. If you have any questions I would be happy to try to find the answer for you but I'm sure you can use a computer as easily as me. Just click on the links.

Thanks Snowflake, I have read the above and would point out that they are still accepted as theories and not fact.

You're very welcome, polyglide. A scientific theory can be a fact. The theory of gravity is a fact. We know this because we are not flying off the planet willy nilly. We know this because planets formed and orbit stars. You may not be able to 'see' gravity but the evidence of its existence is unmistakable. The same applies to evolution and the Big Bang. That there are unanswered questions to scientific theories does not discredit them one iota and conversely does not imply 'there must be a God'.

Your (very) limited knowledge of science and the scientific method is akin to fighting an unarmed battle. Would you argue with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Karl Popper, David Hume, Brian Cox, Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Mary Lyon, James Crick and the hundreds of thousands of scientists over the past 4 centuries? Would you tell them that their life's work and all the evidence they produced was nothing? We wouldn't be where we are today without science and technology. You sit on your computer all day thanks to scientists, engineers and technologists.

And the mess you see in the world is the pessimism and negativity of religious belief. You want Jesus to come back and swoop you off to heaven before the world goes to hell in a handcart. The evidence is that we are far kinder, more tolerant and less violent than we have ever been in history. Yes, there are still problems but they are not as bad as they have been in the past.

Last edited by snowyflake on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : dropped an 'l' on the floor which then rolled out the office door down the stairs and into the kitchen so I made a cup of tea, picked up my roaming 'l' and put it back on the appropriate word.)

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theories are proven and are justtheories.

The potential for world destruction has never ever been available to mankind in the history of mankind as it is today.

There has been incidents of every kind of unreasonable and dispicable behaviour and famines and deseases and plauges etc; in the recorded history of mankind but never on such a scale as we have at the present time and not so world wide.

Just a little point regarding my appreciation of science etc., I know full well that if I touch a fire I will get burnt, with or without qualifications.

The gaining of qualifications indicates the ability to remember certain facts it does not indicate common sense which is far more desireable and you can actually learn something but not understand it.

No it doesn't. Science always allows for new knowledge, so rarely is anything called a "fact." Only religion tries to deal in facts and absolutes.

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theories are proven and are just theories.

Then why can't believers be honest and admit that their religions are only theories?

The potential for world destruction has never ever been available to mankind in the history of mankind as it is today.

So? Just because there is the potential for nuclear holocaust doesn't mean the world isn't a far better place to live in today than it was 200 years ago. Therefore, I posit this question for you. Would you rather take your own personal chances with being vaporized by a nuke today? Or take your chances with an infection 200 years ago? Think very carefully.

There has been incidents of every kind of unreasonable and dispicable behaviour and famines and deseases and plauges etc; in the recorded history of mankind but never on such a scale as we have at the present time and not so world wide.

This is just factually incorrect. Your misconception of the past vs. the present obviously comes from your apocolyptist views, but if your history wasn't "corrupted" by your desire for Jesus's return, you'd know you're factually incorrect. I just don't have time to teach you world history or I would explain in greater detail.

Just a little point regarding my appreciation of science etc., I know full well that if I touch a fire I will get burnt, with or without qualifications.

LOL! This statement reminds me of my very first formal debate in college. My debating partner said, "Cavemen did not need a book to know that dropping a rock on your foot hurts." Um, yeah, we lost that debate, and his statement was a big part of the reason why. He apologised profusely all the way back home. To suggest that we have to experience something to know and understand something discredits the idea of even stepping foot inside of a classroom. Fortunately, humans don't work that way. Otherwise, we would STILL be cavemen because one generation would be incapable of passing on its collective knowledge to the next generation.

The gaining of qualifications indicates the ability to remember certain facts it does not indicate common sense

If I had a nickel for every time I heard some barely literate Southern redneck with an 8th grade education say that, I could buy every university in America. Yeah, polyglide, that kind of sentiment irritates me because of its anti-intellectual nature. Education vs. common sense is not a zero sum game. It's not as though you lose X amount of common sense every time you learn Y amount of academic knowledge. I have three degrees and I can assure you that my ability to tie my own shoes, change the oil in my car, or my understanding that fire is hot has not been compromised.

common sense which is far more desireable and you can actually learn something but not understand it.

For one thing, common sense is not "more desirable." It's just one of many metaphyiscal tools humans use. Common sense and academic knowledge are like a pair of shoes - you can walk a lot farther with both than with only one. To say that one is more desirable than the other is like saying the right shoe is better than the left one. Secondly, today's common sense is tomorrow's academic knowledge. That's the wonderful thing about academic knowledge - we get to learn things the easy way. We don't have to spend time measuring shadows in a well to know the world is spherical because someone else already did that. We don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, rediscovering the Theory of Relativity, or going back to Model T cars every time an older generation dies off and a new generation takes its place. Someone's common sense allows for a discovery today, and that knowledge is added to the sum of all knowledge to be transferred to tomorrow's students. It's a very good system.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang theories are proven and are justtheories.

They are not proven, you are correct, but the amount of evidence supporting the theory suggests that those two theories are likely to be true. With evolution, the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that to scientists, evolution is a fact.

When a crime is committed that no one sees, forensics takes samples, photos, interviews potential suspects or witnesses....in other words, they gather evidence. The weight of that evidence can convince a jury even though there are no eye witnesses to the crime. Hair, DNA, fibres, soil, insects, imprints, fingerprints etc can put a suspect at the place and time of a crime even though no one was there to see it.

Science does the same thing. It gathers evidence and tests the hypothesis to see if the results stand up and support the hypothesis.

The potential for world destruction has never ever been available to mankind in the history of mankind as it is today.

This is what you see? How sad! The potential for saving our world has never been greater. Scientists around the world are working around the clock to find solutions to global hunger, famine, disease and war.

Please see Steve Pinker's presentation called The Better Angels of Our Nature where he shows us that we are less violent, kinder and more tolerant than we have ever been. It's on Youtube.

There has been incidents of every kind of unreasonable and dispicable behaviour and famines and deseases and plauges etc; in the recorded history of mankind but never on such a scale as we have at the present time and not so world wide.

Again, see the above presentation. I think he's right.

Just a little point regarding my appreciation of science etc., I know full well that if I touch a fire I will get burnt, with or without qualifications.

Any monkey can figure out that fire is hot. But can you understand how HPV-18 E6 inhibits p53 DNA binding activity regardless of the oligomeric state of p53 or the exact p53 recognition sequence? If you can't understand that sentence or what it means then you are not qualified to argue against it are you? The same can be said about other areas of science and knowledge that you are not knowledgable about. And if you don't understand science, even the basics, you cannot understand the minutiae of reductionist scientific enquiry.

The gaining of qualifications indicates the ability to remember certain facts it does not indicate common sense which is far more desireable and you can actually learn something but not understand it.

That is a silly thing to say. If you don't understand it, you haven't learned it. Comprehension is fundamental to learning. When you want to fix your car you go to an expert who knows how your car's engine runs, understands the computer programming it. When you are sick you don't go to your mechanic. You go to your doctor. When your boiler breaks down you don't go to your doctor. Qualifications are necessary because without them you got a bunch of cowboys out there performing hysterectomies when they should be overhauling your engine.

Your statement really requires a rewrite with a little common sense added in.

I am happy to discuss scientific points of either evolution or the Big Bang but it's not productive to continue with you just denying the overwhelming evidence supporting both theories. If you have specific questions, we can try to answer them.

I could write you something in Japanese that was a load of rubbish, very similar to some of your ideas. you could learn it off by heart and repeat it at will but if you were not conversant with Japanese you would not understand it.

I could write you formula after formulla and ask you to explain but even if you could not it would neither make them right or wrong, it is what they are based on that matters.

So you are not as smart as you think you are.

If you read the posts you will see that I have already read studied and found all the want in both the Big Bang theories and the evolution theoriesI am perfectly willing to put forward sound grounds for dismissing both.

I could write you formula after formulla and ask you to explain but even if you could not it would neither make them right or wrong, it is what they are based on that matters.

If you don't understand the formula how can you argue against it? You are arguing on a subject you know very little about. You are approaching your research in a biased manner. This is not scientific. You have to be unbiased in research and look for evidence no matter what the evidence shows. If you are researching Big Bang and Evolution and only visiting Christian websites, your research is biased in favour of Christian beliefs which don't provide evidence for why the theories are problematic. Problems in both theories are just that...problems. It doesn't dismiss the entire theory out of hand because of a few issues that don't add up. We need to find the answers to those which will likely raise some more questions for further research.

So you are not as smart as you think you are

I don't think I'm all that smart. I think I'm reasonable and I look at the weight of the evidence. The weight of evidence for Evolution and Big Bang is crushing. The few minor issues are on the 'further research' shelf but I still lean towards that than towards a belief in invisible, spirit beings that carry on some kind of existence behind the veil that affect each of us individually 'for our own good'. It's a nonsense.

If you read the posts you will see that I have already read studied and found all the want in both the Big Bang theories and the evolution theoriesI am perfectly willing to put forward sound grounds for dismissing both.

I did read your posts but I don't think your understanding of basic science is good enough to dismiss either theory. No offense.

I could write you something in Japanese that was a load of rubbish, very similar to some of your ideas. you could learn it off by heart and repeat it at will but if you were not conversant with Japanese you would not understand it.

If I really wanted to know what you were writing, I would learn Japanese. Just like if you really wanted to know what science was saying, you would learn science.

But you don't. And, if you want my opinion (and you're going to get it even if you don't), I think you're scared out of your gourd to learn - I mean REALLY learn - science. It violates your comfort zone. It's fine to visit Creationist websites and learn their nonsensical science because it is rife with confirmation bias. You KNOW even before you log into them that they'll explain to you how evolution is wrong and the Bible is right. Wow, what a relief that must be to you! I've said before that religion is popular because it's simple. You don't have to learn Japanese, so to speak. You can open up the Bible, read Genesis 1:1 and pretend to know precisely how and why the universe came into existence. No thinking necessary - and no learning necessary, either. It's no wonder then that a massive amount of poorly educated people in America are die-hard Christians; why only 40% believe in evolution, and why so many barely literate Christians hate or denegrate education. There IS a causal link there.

If you read the posts you will see that I have already read studied and found all the want in both the Big Bang theories and the evolution theories

I've read your posts and know full well that you have very little understanding of what evolution proposes. As Snowy said, no offense. It doesn't make you dumb if you don't know. It DOES, however, make you ignorant, especially if you try to argue against evolution without really understanding it. Those who DO understand it can tell.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Back on the old MSNBC boards, some people would get really pissed at me for the things I've expressed in my posts. One of them, a woman by the name of "tinydeputy," actually shouted at me, "Do you have to be right all the time?!?"

Well, I'm not always right - but it may appear that way to some because, and here's the secret, I NEVER open my mouth unless I'm knowledgeable about the subject being discussed. I don't pretend to know something. That's why you don't see me in the UK Politics section trying to argue on a subject I know very little about. I keep quiet and learn instead of trying to bluff my way through a debate where my knowledge is lacking. Each and every one of us is ignorant in some way because no one knows everything. What really matters is the desire to learn - even learn knowledge for its own sake and not hold up a cross to ward of knowledge that might violate your religion or personal comfort zone.

Really learning about evolution will probably not make you an atheist and it won't send you to hell. You could at least propose arguments that are based on something other than, "Well, I don't know how caterpillars change into butterfiles so it must be God!" Also, no one expects you to become an evolutionary biologist, but you do lack even basic knowledge as you've misrepresented evolution several times.